Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>>
>> The drawback of that approach is that you cannot combine predications
>> that "resolve" differently.
[...]
> In any case, this drawback seems a rather small one to me.

It's impotant though. For example, compare:

(1) ca lo prulamnicte mi tavla su'o da poi do nelci ke'a
"Last night I talked to someone you like."

(2) ca lo prulamnicte mi citka su'o da poi do nelci ke'a
"Last night I ate something you like."

You want to accept (1) but reject (2), even though to me they have the
exact same logical structure. You would need to say something like "ca
lo prulamnicte mi citka su'o da poi ckaji su'o de poi do nelci ke'a"
instead of (2).

Or consider:

(3) mi zukte lo se zukte be do
"I'm doing what you are doing."

You have to say: "mi zukte lo ckaji be lo se ckaji be lo se zukte be do."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.